What Pro-Active Councils Do!

Bayside council is currently undertaking community consultation on its draft C140 Amendment which will apply to areas zoned Neighbourhood Residential. Aside from the content, the methodology of this consultation stands in stark contrast to current practices in Glen Eira. Please note:

An online survey

An 8 page explanatory booklet in plain English

Clear explanations on the website – Glen Eira residents have to be ‘satisfied’ with the regurgitation of incomprehensible jargon contained in the public advertising and with only a link to the department as follow up!

Limit subdivision size to 400 square metres. Glen Eira has no minimal subdivision size. In fact, Council granted 487 Neerim Road permission for 8 subdivisions. These all ranged in size from 199 square metres to just over 200 square metres! With no minimal subdivision size, this means that it is hypothetically possible for landowners and developers to subdivide and then subdivide again. In other words – 4 dwellings on a lot instead of the much vaunted 2 dwellings per lot. We expect developers to cotton on to this loophole very soon.

Permeability of 35%. Glen Eira prides itself on achieving that massive percentage of a piddling 25% which has been in place since 2004 and we wonder how hard our ‘negotiators’ really tried to increase this quotient! Please remember that there are other councils with as much as 40% permeability requirements!

Private open space to equal 75 square metres – a minimum of which must be 60 square metres and 5 metres wide. In Glen Eira, residents are stuck with – “An area of 60 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 4 metres and convenient access from a living room”.

Bayside is also basing its draft on a 2012 Housing Strategy and is currently reviewing its Planning Scheme. Again, compare and contrast with what Glen Eira is doing!!!!!

An astonishing economic justification for avoiding significant penalties if the case is proven.

I can’t help thinking how wonderful it is that the MRC (with assets of half a billion) has excluded the public from declared public parkland so that it can be used for early morning horse training without any legal right to do so and without paying a cent..It’s even more wonderful that the $15 million Moody empire gets to take advantage of this free crown land..

UNFORTUNATELY Glen Eira Council is in no position to make changes to the zones imposed on residents without any consultation in 2013. Glen Eira Council, unlike other Council’s, have simply failed to undertake any of the planning work they promised to do when the Housing Diversity/Minimal Change Areas (which are the basis for the “direct and neutral translation”) were introduced in 2003. Without that work (introduction of structure plans, overlays, traffic management, open space,parking precinct plans, drainage etc. etc. etc.) and without any analysis of what’s occurred in the intervening 10 years Glen Eira is unable to provide a substantiated strategic justification for making changes. Other Councils can but Glen Eira can’t.

FORTUNATELY, despite the residents clamouring (since 2003 and in particular since 2013) for changes to be made and a planning scheme review to be undertaken, Council has no intention of doing anything. Without any public announcement or decision being made in an open Council Meeting, Council has applied for and received from the Minister, an exemption to review the planning zones for another 12 months. I suppose some could interpret this as giving Council time to do what it should have done in the past but in the absence of anything that indicates a change in attitude from either the Administration and Councillors I doubt it. .

Correction: Council has not applied for exemption from doing a Planning Review. DELWP confirmed that two requests came from Council officers, without delegated authority or Council resolutions to give them authority. The Department “recognized their names”, and both Liberal and Labor Planning Ministers granted exemptions/extensions, despite the woeful justification those officers provided. David Davis just last week publicly supported the delaying of Reviews without transparency or accountability.

Not sure I follow this comment – are you saying that without appropriate authority two Council Officers (whose names were recognised by the department, ergo they aren’t low on the totem pole) requested exemptions based on woeful justifications and were granted extensions?

Perhaps the Bayside Council allocates more money towards Town Planning than GECC.
Have a read of page 8 in the August issue of the Glen Eira News.
It provides a 2015-16 ‘Annual Budget Breakdown’
“Services that Council delivers for every $100 of rate revenue (2015-2016)

1. Capital works = 30.64%

2. Recycling and waste = 12.79%

3.Parks and recreation = 17.15%

4. Family and children’s services = 6.71%

5. Urban maintenance = 13.76%

6. Community safety = 3.52%

7. Cultural services = 1.32%

8. Services for the aged = 6.42%

9. Libraries = 5.17%

AND, here’s the proof in the pudding!!!!!

10. Town Planning= 2.25%

It shows how low a priority ‘Town Planning’ is to the GECC., and explains the poor quality, sloppy work which is generated by that Department.
Perhaps they should allocate some of the fat pay checks given to the Council Administrators, and put it towards Planning, ensuring that this municipality doesn’t continue down the plughole!

These percentages of course need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. For example: how much of the 30.64% claimed to be spent on ‘capital works’ includes the carry over from funds not spent from last year’s budget? We recall a figure of close to $8 million that was cited as carry over. As for ‘parks and recreation’ – well, that could include anything from interest payments on a $25 million borrowing for GESAC, plus millions spent on concrete plinths. As we know – there are lies, damn lies, and finally meaningless statistics!

I absolutely agree with your assessment of poor quality and sloppy work generated by the planning department – in fact I’d extend the comments to a number of other departments as well Years of the planning department’s substandard performance is having a negative impact on the daily lives of all residents.

However, I disagree with the suggestion that the solution is to increase spending on that department. The substandard work is evident for all to see – it’s regularly on display at the planning counter, it appears in officers reports and at VCAT. It’s presented to and approved by Councillors after being pre-approved by the upper levels of the Administration.

Therefore, to change it, you need to start at the top – start with changing the Councillors. You need to get Councillors who actually represent residents by fulfilling their legal responsibility of overseeing the Administration rather than acting as a rubber stamp for that Administration. Only through them can you change the Administration – they are the ones deliverying the substandard performance.